Cases

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lacey S. Mitchell appeals the magistrate judge’s order affirming the Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance benefits.* We must uphold the decision to deny benefits if the decision is supported by substantial evidence and the correct

BLACK, Circuit Judge: Donnell Mitchell appeals the district court’s order affirming the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) denial of his application for supplemental security income (SSI) and the Appeals Council’s decision denying his request for review. On appeal, Mitchell contends substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s credibility determination and that the Appeals Coun

536 U.S. 976 MITCHELLv.BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY. No. 01-7219. Supreme Court of the United States. August 5, 2002. 1 535 U. S. 933. Petitions for rehearing denied.

535 U.S. 933 MITCHELLv.BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY. No. 01-7219. Supreme Court of the United States. March 18, 2002. 1 C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 17 Fed. Appx. 39.

MEMORANDUM ** This case involves an application for disability benefits filed by Lalo Flores (“Flores”) under Title II of the Social Security Act. Flores’ application was denied by an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), whose denial became the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. Thereafter, Flores appealed the ALJ’s decision to the district court, who affirmed the denial of benefits. Flores

MEMORANDUM *** Plaintiff-Appellant Mary Bowser (“Bowser” or “Claimant”) appeals the District Court’s entry of judgment for DefendantAppellee Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”), denying Bowser’s application for supplemental security income benefits (“SSI”) and disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act (“Act”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381 et seq. an

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge WILKINS wrote the opinion, in which Chief Judge WILKINSON and Judge LUTTIG joined. OPINION WILKINS, Circuit Judge: Terry M. Mitchell appeals an order of the district court affirming a denial of disability insurance benefits (DIB) and supplemental security income (SSI) under the Social Security

MEMORANDUM ** Beverly Russell appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. We review de novo the order affirming the Commissioner’s denial of disability benefits, see Morgan v. Comm’r, 169 F.3d 595, 599 (9th Cir.1999), and we affirm. There was substantial evidence to support the decision of the Administrativ

OPINION CHERTOFF, Circuit Judge. Evon Hudson appeals from the District Court’s judgment affirming the Commis *429 sioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for supplemental security income benefits (SSI). Hudson’s ap

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________ ) KISHA SIMON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 17-2033 (RBW) ) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL ) SECURITY,

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2042 Doc: 42 Filed: 02/22/2023 Pg: 1 of 48 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 21-2042 SHELLEY C., Plaintiff – Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA _________________________________________ ) CHARLETHA B. MIDDLETON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) Civil Action No. 16-1596 (EGS) ) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURIT

PER CURIAM: Appellant Hans Schink applied for Social Security disability benefits based on various physical impairments and the fact that he suffered from bipolar disorder. The matter proceeded to a hearing before an administrative law judge ("ALJ"), who denied benefits. Schink appealed the decision

USCA11 Case: 22-10568 Document: 46-1 Date Filed: 04/04/2024 Page: 1 of 21 [PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-10568 ____________________ ISAAC FLOWERS,

BOWMAN, Circuit Judge. Tywana Edwards, alleging injuries from a car crash, petitioned the Social Security Administration (SSA) for supplemental security income. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied her request, finding that Edwards’s subjective complaints of pain were not credible and that her physician’s opinion did not deserve controlling weight. The SSA Commissioner and

PER CURIAM: Luis Rodriguez appeals from the district court’s order affirming the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) denial of his application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income (collectively, “disability benefits”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3). On appeal, Rodriguez argues that the ALJ erred in determining, at step three of the sequential evaluation, that his mental impairments did not meet

MEMORANDUM OPINION JAMES E. BOASBERG, United States District Judge The Acting Commissioner of Social Security determined that Plaintiff Reginald Mitchell is not disabled under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 301 et seq., and is therefore ineligible to receive Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) or Supplemental Security Income (SSI).

OPINION REINHARDT, Circuit Judge. Thomas E. McCartey appeals from a district court judgment affirming the Commissioner’s decision to deny him Social Security Disability (“SSD”) benefits. One of the grounds urged by McCartey for reversal of the Commissioner’s decision is that the ALJ erred in rejecting his SSD application without considering the finding

DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (DOC. #16) IN THEIR ENTIRETY; DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS TO SAID JUDICIAL FILING (DOC. #20) OVERRULED; JUDGMENT TO BE ENTERED IN FAVOR . OF PLAINTIFF AND AGAINST DEFENDANT COMMISSIONER, REVERSING COMMISSIONER’S DECISION THAT PLAINTIFF WAS NOT DISABLED AND, THEREFORE, NOT ENTITLED TO BENEFITS UNDER THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT AND REMANDING CAPTIONED CAUSE TO THE DEFENDANT COM

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER VERNELIS K. ARMSTRONG, United States Magistrate Judge. I. Introduction Plaintiff Ciara Marie Davila (“Plaintiff’) seeks judicial review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of Defendant Commissioner’s (“Defendant” or “Commissioner”) final determination denying her claim for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.